<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (2) TMI 150 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256150</link>
    <description>The Finance Act, 2010 amendment to section 40(a)(ia) was treated as curative and retrospective from 1 April 2005 because it removed the earlier disparity in TDS deposit timing and extended the deposit deadline to the due date under section 139(1). Legislative materials showed the change was intended to remove hardship and make the provision workable, so the disallowance based on a prospective reading was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2015 13:40:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=375307" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 150 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256150</link>
      <description>The Finance Act, 2010 amendment to section 40(a)(ia) was treated as curative and retrospective from 1 April 2005 because it removed the earlier disparity in TDS deposit timing and extended the deposit deadline to the due date under section 139(1). Legislative materials showed the change was intended to remove hardship and make the provision workable, so the disallowance based on a prospective reading was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256150</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>